VOTE - Ottawa Senators Top Prospects: #1 (2015)

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

This is precisely where I'm having trouble. According to Ev's way of thinking, Stone, who improved exponentially after his draft year would be supplanted by a guy like O'Brien, simply due to draft positioning.

He's ignoring development completely.

no, I'm not. You're choosing not to read my posts carefully.

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

This is precisely where I'm having trouble. According to Ev's way of thinking, Stone, who improved exponentially after his draft year would be supplanted by a guy like O'Brien, simply due to draft positioning.

He's ignoring development completely.

no, I'm not. You're choosing not to read my posts carefully.

Consider the possibility that you're not communicating effectively. If you notice a whole bunch of readers misunderstanding you, consider that you might be the problem.

I think the formula is to take the hype originating from the organization and adding that players position in the draft, divide by 2 and multiply by the draft year you get your answer?

SeawaySensFan wrote:There can only be one right answer though because the answer is whoever the organization likes best. Right?

Wrong! Because Lazar is *not* one of the options.

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

This is precisely where I'm having trouble. According to Ev's way of thinking, Stone, who improved exponentially after his draft year would be supplanted by a guy like O'Brien, simply due to draft positioning.

He's ignoring development completely.

no, I'm not. You're choosing not to read my posts carefully.

Consider the possibility that you're not communicating effectively. If you notice a whole bunch of readers misunderstanding you, consider that you might be the problem.

you're the only one who is misunderstanding, really. Prager just misunderstands and argues everything so I don't count him.

If NEELY would be replying right now, he'd be agreeing with me 100% I would imagine.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

Correct! If you don't like that, you should create your own poll and clearly state that it doesn't follow Ev's rules.

SSF also seems to be asking questions.

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

This is precisely where I'm having trouble. According to Ev's way of thinking, Stone, who improved exponentially after his draft year would be supplanted by a guy like O'Brien, simply due to draft positioning.

He's ignoring development completely.

no, I'm not. You're choosing not to read my posts carefully.

Well, you're choosing not to write them clearly, so ...

This is so much fun! Judging from Ev's avatar I've driven him to drink.

wprager wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

Correct!  If you don't like that, you should create your own poll and clearly state that it doesn't follow Ev's rules.

How bout I create another poll and block you from posting or voting?

Or else you migth vote a marginal prospect like Lindberg over Colin White.

Go ahead and try, lol.

SeawaySensFan wrote:I think the formula is to take the hype originating from the organization and adding that players position in the draft, divide by 2 and multiply by the draft year you get your answer?

The question is how do you represent this in your formula. We need to devise a hype scale from 1 - 10 in order for this to work. But I think this is as close to perfect as possible.

Of course the ranking would have to be reversed ie. last player picked would be a 1, and first would be 211 (based on 2015).

SeawaySensFan wrote:Of course the ranking would have to be reversed ie. last player picked would be a 1, and first would be 211 (based on 2015).

It's a simple concept.

You ladies are terrible.


Top prospect simply means highest upside combined with possibility of achieving those expectations. Not in one year but in the long run. In other words in the players NHL career. And yes it can't be evaluated after one year.
Now quit your Wing Dang Doodle and contribute.


I voted for pumpel simply because he really looks like he's gonna be a good top 6 forward and his chances to succeed are looking really good. I like Paul but I'm not sure if he's top 6 or top 9. I would probably rate chabot ahead of him right now.

you know even if you do the rankings by draft position only, it's still close to actual rankings IMO.

Chabot
White
Puempel
Gagne
Englund
Chlapik
Prince
Driedger
Hogberg
Paul
Lindberg

Flo The Action wrote:You ladies are terrible.


Top prospect simply means highest upside combined with possibility of achieving those expectations. Not in one year but in the long run. In other words in the players NHL career. And yes it can't be evaluated after one year.
Now quit your Wing Dang Doodle and contribute.


I voted for pumpel simply because he really looks like he's gonna be a good top 6 forward and his chances to succeed are looking really good. I like Paul but I'm not sure if he's top 6 or top 9. I would probably rate chabot ahead of him right now.

This is exactly what I mean by "highest attainable upside."

Ev wrote:you know even if you do the rankings by draft position only, it's still close to actual rankings IMO.

Chabot
White
Puempel
Gagne
Englund
Chlapik
Prince
Driedger
Hogberg
Paul
Lindberg

Poll closed?